Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MacosNerd · Jun 12, 2007, 08:59 AM

pricing is the same as parallels.
Preorder is set at 40 dollars and full price is 80 dollars. Release date is documented to be at the end of August.

I'm a little surprised at the pricing, I thought they undercut parallels but I suppose they don't want get into a price war like they did with microsoft.

Edit: Random thoughts
Since parallels (as buggy as it is) is fully entrenched and a lot of people have already purchased it, I wonder how successful fusion is? I've completely switched over. The crashing and spinning beach-ball of death was getting tiresome. So far while it is a beta (knocks on wood) things seem more stable then 2.5 of parallels (not evening comparing 3.0)

milhouse · Jun 12, 2007, 09:07 AM

I can't d/l the beta and can't purchase a pre-order due to site issues, at least when I try.

I've had trouble downloading the beta (keeps returning me to the registration form instead of downloading) for a few days.

Anyone else have success?

I already own parallels but I hear that Fusion is more responsive because it can use multiple cores. Too bad both SWs can't use the same virtual image (could make a copy, one for each). Perhaps Bootcamp is the way to go because, IIRC, both Fusion and Parallels can make use of the bootcamp partition.

Either way, it's really a fun time to own a Mac. There's just about nothing it can't do, computing wise.

MacosNerd · Jun 12, 2007, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by milhouse

I already own parallels but I hear that Fusion is more responsive because it can use multiple cores. Too bad both SWs can't use the same virtual image (could make a copy, one for each). Perhaps Bootcamp is the way to go because, IIRC, both Fusion and Parallels can make use of the bootcamp partition.

Either way, it's really a fun time to own a Mac. There's just about nothing it can't do, computing wise.

You can use VMWARE's converter to convert the parallels VM to VMware's. I did it and it worked like a charm. I had to re-activate windows but it did that automatically.

Here's a link on the steps to convert it. Pretty easy using converter

You'll have to download converter from vmware separately linky: converter

milhouse · Jun 12, 2007, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

You can use VMWARE's converter to convert the parallels VM to VMware's. I did it and it worked like a charm. I had to re-activate windows but it did that automatically.

Here's a link on the steps to convert it. Pretty easy using converter

You'll have to download converter from vmware separately linky: converter

Sweet. Thanks!

Macola · Jun 12, 2007, 11:09 AM

I wouldn't mind switching to Fusion, but Parallels had a big advantage for me: it was first to market. It was there when I needed it a year ago, while VMWare had absolutely nothing to offer.

MacosNerd · Jun 12, 2007, 12:50 PM

Loyalty only goes so far for products at least in my mind. If you pop over to the parallels forums you see a lot of issues with lack of support, lots of bugs and general problems with parallels. That's not to say everyone is having problems but it is clear they rushed 3.0 out too quick.

There's also a lot of complaining about deceptive marketing because initially 3.0 was advertised that you could play all of your direct-x games then come to find out support for direct-x and games iffy at best.

For me, I need an environment that's stable and responsive. Parallels came close but I've been putting up with crashes and the spinning beachball of death. So far none of that has occured with fusion.

workerbee · Jun 12, 2007, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

For me, I need an environment that's stable and responsive. Parallels came close but I've been putting up with crashes and the spinning beachball of death. So far none of that has occured with fusion.

Same here... but with Parallels. Never had a crash nor a beachball while using Parallels 2.5 with XP Home, and since last Sunday I now can play Half Life 2 in Parallels 3 in my Mac.

Obviously, YMMV.

MacosNerd · Jun 12, 2007, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by workerbee

Same here... but with Parallels. Never had a crash nor a beachball while using Parallels 2.5 with XP Home, and since last Sunday I now can play Half Life 2 in Parallels 3 in my Mac.

Obviously, YMMV.

Not for me, I'm using 2.5 and I'm experiencing crashes and the beachball. I have not even upgraded to 3.0

mduell · Jun 12, 2007, 03:38 PM

I hope there's a free version (with the same feature set as the Windows/Linux version).

utw-Mephisto · Jun 12, 2007, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by [email protected] to me

show details
22:42 (22 minutes ago)
** Please do not reply to this email **

Dear Michael xxxx,

Thank you for your order.

YEAY ....

inkhead · Jun 12, 2007, 09:50 PM

Yup switching to Fusion is the best money ever spent...

Wiskedjak · Jun 12, 2007, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Macola

I wouldn't mind switching to Fusion, but Parallels had a big advantage for me: it was first to market. It was there when I needed it a year ago, while VMWare had absolutely nothing to offer.

First-to-market means nothing to me. The best product is the one that gets my loyalty, until, of course, something better comes along.

I've wondered if the loyalty to Parallels is because VMWare has traditionally been used more on Windows PCs?

Macola · Jun 13, 2007, 11:51 AM

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Fusion isn't better. However, I needed a virtualization solution when I bought my MacBook a year ago, and Parallels was the only game in town. I do use Fusion (with Ubuntu 7.x) but Parallels (up until 3.0) had been working very well for me with XP.

stew · Jun 13, 2007, 12:32 PM

Bought it and it works beautifully. I can run VS.net from my Boot Camp partition, it sees two CPU cores and shows up correctly in Expose. Neat

Toyin · Jun 13, 2007, 02:32 PM

I'm not too sure that Forums are the place to go looking for how software works. Most forums exist for complaints. My experience with Parallels has been fantastic. Their support isn't the best, but I really didn't need it.

I posted this in another thread.

Well had to switch back to Parallels after a few days. VMWare Fusion just seems too buggy.

My issues
. Window re-draw is definitely slower and flickers more then Parallels
. Unity is cool but BUGGY!. Try minimizing a few windows to the dock. Then launching a new application. All the minimized windows pop up out of the dock
. Unity. No ability to hide individual windows. Heck, no ability to hide all the windows
. Easy access to the Programs menu, but no easy access to the start menu.
. Network connection must be manually repaired every time you change locations. Parallels does this automatically
. VPN software I use from work takes a bit longer to connect under Fusion.
. Speed. Initially VMWare seemed fast, but it's gotten slower and slower. Launching Windows Media Player took over 5 minutes earlier today.
. Speed. Resuming from suspension seems to be taking longer and longer.
. Speed. VMWare can bring OS-X on my MacBook Pro (2gb ram) to a screeching halt

I never got to try Palm synchronization and other externals, so I can't answer to that.

I'll pre-order Fusion, since $40 is enough of an impulse buy and I have a feeling that in the long run it will be better then Parallels. But for now, I need Parallels.

alex_kac · Jun 13, 2007, 03:09 PM

Well had to switch back to Parallels after a few days. VMWare Fusion just seems too buggy.

My issues
. Window re-draw is definitely slower and flickers more then Parallels

Using Unity or normal use? Under Unity - yes. But Unity is like an alpha right now, its not finished and is missing a lot of stuff and not even close to beta. Its a much better design than Parallel's Coherence, but has a long way to go. Thankfully its not meant to be finished until August.

. Unity is cool but BUGGY!. Try minimizing a few windows to the dock. Then launching a new application. All the minimized windows pop up out of the dock

See above.

. Unity. No ability to hide individual windows. Heck, no ability to hide all the windows
. Easy access to the Programs menu, but no easy access to the start menu.

See above.

. Network connection must be manually repaired every time you change locations. Parallels does this automatically

Hm, I do this somewhat often. I haven't seen this yet. I'd post this in the VMWare forum and see what you get. Unlike Parallels, they answer nearly every post and they answer it in a very informed manner.

. VPN software I use from work takes a bit longer to connect under Fusion.
. Speed. Initially VMWare seemed fast, but it's gotten slower and slower. Launching Windows Media Player took over 5 minutes earlier today.
. Speed. Resuming from suspension seems to be taking longer and longer.
. Speed. VMWare can bring OS-X on my MacBook Pro (2gb ram) to a screeching halt

At first VMWare was slower, but far more stable. Now its faster and it runs really really well for me. Now one thing I did was move from Bootcamp to a real VM. That sped things up dramatically.

Toyin · Jun 13, 2007, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by alex_kac

Using Unity or normal use? Under Unity - yes. But Unity is like an alpha right now, its not finished and is missing a lot of stuff and not even close to beta. Its a much better design than Parallel's Coherence, but has a long way to go. Thankfully its not meant to be finished until August.

Hm, I do this somewhat often. I haven't seen this yet. I'd post this in the VMWare forum and see what you get. Unlike Parallels, they answer nearly every post and they answer it in a very informed manner.

At first VMWare was slower, but far more stable. Now its faster and it runs really really well for me. Now one thing I did was move from Bootcamp to a real VM. That sped things up dramatically.

Yes all of this is under Unity and with a Virtual hard drive I created with VMWare converter. I've gotten spoiled with coherence so I don't want to go back to using the OS Window or alternating between desktop spaces. Like I said, I plan on purchasing Fusion now, because at $40 it's a steal, then I can make my decision what to use when the final product is out.

MacosNerd · Jun 13, 2007, 08:15 PM

I'm not a big fan of unity or coherence. I'd rather keep my windows segregated from my osx world. I only use windows for work and its nice to have them all in a single vm not floating around.

workerbee · Jun 15, 2007, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

I'm not a big fan of unity or coherence. I'd rather keep my windows segregated from my osx world. I only use windows for work and its nice to have them all in a single vm not floating around.

Same here.

Also, clients and other Winze users tend to not believe it's real live ugly Windows XP running on my Mac when Coherence (or Unity) is on... and showing windoze off in OS X is (still) simply

.

Toyin · Jun 15, 2007, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

I'm not a big fan of unity or coherence. I'd rather keep my windows segregated from my osx world. I only use windows for work and its nice to have them all in a single vm not floating around.

To each their own. I need to use Windows for work as well, but I also have to use OSX for work. I frequently need access to files on my laptop. I also need access to graphic files and web development files that I've created in OSX.

When using my laptop I prefer not to experience the transition between OSX and XP which can be jarring (in retrospect). I'm often cutting and pasting information between both OSes. With coherence and unity I can cmd-tab between applications smoothly. Unity makes the transition even smoother and less jarring.